ERIC ED605270: Administrators' Roles: Providing Special Educators with Opportunities to Learn and Enact Effective Reading Practices for Students with EBD

2020·0.11 MB·English

by  ERIC

904024
research-article2020 BBXXXX10.1177/1074295620904024Beyond BehaviorBettini et al.
Article
Beyond Behavior
Administrators’ Roles: Providing Special 2020, Vol. 29(1) 52 –61
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Educators with Opportunities to Learn
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DhttOpsI::/ /1d0o.i1.o1r7g/71/01.10177472/190576422905960240092044024
and Enact Effective Reading Practices for journals.sagepub.com/home/bbx
Students With EBD
Elizabeth Bettini, PhD1, Michelle M. Cumming, PhD2, Nelson C. Brunsting, PhD3,
John William McKenna, PhD4, Caitlin Cooper Schneider, MEd1,*,
Rebecca Muller, MEd1,*, and David Peyton, PhD5
Abstract
Special educators are responsible for providing quality reading instruction to students with emotional and behavioral
disorders (EBD), but they often experience difficulties fulfilling this responsibility, especially for students with EBD who are
placed in dedicated settings, including self-contained classes. Administrators can help by ensuring special educators have
what they need to provide effective reading instruction. We highlight how administrators can leverage special educators’
working conditions to improve the reading instruction that students with EBD receive in self-contained settings.
Keywords
reading instruction, self-contained settings, working conditions, students with emotional and behavioral disorders
Lincoln Elementary1 is home to a dedicated program for stu- behavioral challenges (Rozalski et al., 2010). These class-
dents with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). Led rooms or schools are part of a continuum of placements
by a special educator, Ms. Stevens, the program is intended available through the least restrictive environment provi-
to support students with EBD in their home district. Program sion of the Individuals With Disabilities Education
goals include ensuring students’ safety, developing the req- Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004), and approximately 35%
uisite academic and behavioral skills, and, when applicable, of students with EBD nationally learn in self-contained set-
transitioning students back into general education class- tings (Office of Special Education Programs, 2017), includ-
room settings. At present, however, Ms. Moretta, Lincoln ing separate classes within typical neighborhood schools
Elementary’s principal, is worried that students, in her and separate schools such as therapeutic day schools
words, “aren’t making the gains in literacy that we’d like (Rozalski et al., 2010).
. . . . The reading levels aren’t where we want them to be.” Effective reading instruction is especially important for
Ms. Moretta knows that reading proficiency is crucial for students with EBD (Kostewicz & Kubina, 2008). Although
the present and future success of the school’s students, but is some students with EBD have strong reading skills, on aver-
not quite sure what to do address their lack of reading prog- age, the majority demonstrate significant deficits (Wanzek
ress. She knows Ms. Stevens has a very challenging job et al., 2014). Consistent with what Mrs. Moretta has noticed
—“probably the hardest job in the school.” Ms. Stevens has in Ms. Stevens’s class, researchers have found that students
recently announced that she will resign her position at the
end of this year. Ms. Moretta wants to understand how she
1Boston University, MA, USA
could have better supported Ms. Stevens and increase the
2Florida International University, Miami, USA
likelihood that the incoming teacher, Ms. Jones, will provide
3Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
high-quality reading instruction, that students will achieve 4University of Massachusetts Lowell, USA
appropriate reading gains, and that Ms. Jones will be less 5Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA
likely to leave her new position at the end of her first year.
*Rebecca Muller and Caitlin Cooper Schneider contributed equally to
Dedicated classes, such as self-contained classes or this manuscript.
schools for students with EBD, exist to provide effective,
Corresponding Author:
intensive, and individualized instruction in social–emo-
Elizabeth Bettini, Boston University, 2 Silber Way, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
tional and academic skills to students with significant Email: [email protected]
Bettini et al. 53
with EBD tend to have consistently significantly weaker instructional process (Landrum et al., 2003). As an exam-
reading skills and, furthermore, demonstrate slower growth ple, a teacher might follow a sequence of activities that
rates than students without disabilities (Wanzek et al., 2014). begins with relevant letter–sound correspondence instruc-
Thus, to improve their reading skills, highly effective inter- tion before moving to word reading, vocabulary instruction
ventions are needed (Brownell et al., 2012). and development of background knowledge, and narrative/
Unfortunately, researchers consistently find that the expository text reading with support. In the preceding
instructional challenges Ms. Moretta describes at Lincoln sequence, the teacher-supported text reading activities serve
Elementary are common in dedicated settings for students as an opportunity for students to practice and apply skills
with EBD, including both self-contained classes within addressed earlier in the lesson within connected text.
neighborhood schools (like Ms. Stevens’s class) and sepa- High-quality reading instruction is also explicit, provid-
rate day schools. In these settings, reading instruction is ing students with frequent opportunities to respond to and
often of low quality (Maggin et al., 2011; McKenna & receive feedback on their learning (Garwood et al., 2017).
Ciullo, 2016). Studies indicate that special educators in In effective reading instruction environments, teachers limit
these settings seldom use research- or evidence-based read- the use of independent silent reading or round robin read-
ing and classroom management practices (Levy & Vaughn, ing, as these structures reduce student accountability,
2002) and devote only about a third of their time to aca- opportunities for active engagement, and opportunities to
demic instruction (Vannest & Hagan-Burke, 2010). receive feedback (Garwood et al., 2017). Effective specially
The purpose of this article is to provide administrators designed instruction targets specific reading skills with
like Ms. Moretta with recommendations for how they can which students struggle, in addition to providing students
support special educators in providing high-quality reading access to core grade-level curricular content. Furthermore,
instruction to students with EBD in dedicated settings. We student interests and opportunities for choice are incorpo-
first briefly describe key elements of strong reading instruc- rated to promote student engagement (Ryan et al., 2008).
tion for students with EBD. We then explain how working During instruction, teachers reinforce students at high
conditions relate to instruction and how administrators can rates for effort, on-task behavior, and task completion
improve the demands and resources that support or con- (McKenna & Bettini, 2018). For example, students may
strain special educators’ opportunities to learn and enact receive behavior-specific praise, tokens, or points toward a
effective instructional practices so that reading instruction reward when they persist on difficult tasks, complete tasks,
and student performance improve. or engage in lesson activities (McKenna & Flower, 2014).
Reinforcers need to be individualized and selected based on
Key Elements of High-Quality Reading the items and privileges that are reinforcing to individual
students (McKenna & Bettini, 2018). Individualized rein-
Instruction for Students With EBD
forcers can be identified for an individual student through
A classroom characterized by strong reading instruction for completion of a preference assessment. Earned breaks may
students with EBD is one in which students have daily be particularly effective both to reinforce students and
opportunities to develop reading skills and instructional develop positive student–teacher relationships, which may
time is allocated specifically to reading (McKenna et al., be crucial to the success of reading interventions (McKenna
2019). In an effective reading environment, transitions et al., 2019).
between activities are efficient, with students spending little Educators need to regularly collect data on students’
or no time waiting for instruction to begin or continue. reading performance to determine the degree to which stu-
Minimal instructional time is lost due to challenging behav- dents are benefiting from reading instruction (Hott et al.,
iors and other activities (e.g., related services; earned free 2019) and inform the regrouping of students. Because chal-
time) are scheduled at another time. lenging behaviors can adversely affect reading progress,
In effective classrooms, quality reading lessons are special educators also need to collect data on behavioral
highly structured (McKenna et al., 2019). For example, progress through instruments such as direct behavior rat-
teachers first verbally review a brief visual schedule (e.g., ings (Chafouleas et al., 2012). Thus, it is recommended to
advance organizer or agenda) of activities to be completed include both academic and behavioral data collection as
during the session and remind students of reinforcement part of reading instructional practices. Academic data will
(e.g., points, brief break at the end of the lesson) that can be help special educators determine whether the reading
earned for effort and completing assigned tasks. As students instruction itself needs further adjustment, while behavioral
complete activities, teachers check them off or erase them data will inform whether additional supports are needed to
from the visual schedule. address student behavior that may be interfering with
During instruction, activities may progress from less instruction. Furthermore, regular and ongoing analyses of
demanding to more complex tasks which incorporate the both academic and behavioral data can help teachers make
research-based practice of behavioral momentum into the informed instructional decisions in a timely manner
54 Beyond Behavior 29(1)
Table 1. Opportunities to Learn and Enact Effective Reading Instructional Practices.
Opportunities to learn effective reading instructional practices?
Do special educators have… Yes No
Opportunities to Enact Yes YY: Special educators can YN: Special educators may
Effective Reading develop the knowledge and skill not be able to use their
Instructional Practices? to provide effective reading resources and instructional
instruction, and they have the time effectively in the service
resources and time necessary of students. Skilled reading
to enact that knowledge in the instruction is unlikely to occur.
service of students.
No NY: Special educators may NN: Special educators have
struggle to enact their neither the knowledge nor the
knowledge to provide high- resources that they need to
quality reading. Skilled reading provide high-quality reading
instruction is unlikely to occur, instruction. Skilled reading
and special educators are likely instruction is highly unlikely to
to experience frustration. occur.
(Kalberg et al., 2010). For example, for students who fail to Administrators’ Roles in Supporting
make progress, these data could lead teachers to create a Special Educators’ Reading Instruction
behavior intervention plan to improve behavior during
reading instruction (Kauffman & Landrum, 2018) and/or Special educators, like Ms. Stevens, have a responsibility to
seek out and enact supplemental, more intensive interven- provide high-quality reading instruction to students with
tions for students (Kalberg et al., 2010). EBD, but they often experience many barriers to fulfilling
Ideally, this is what Ms. Moretta would see when she this responsibility, including poor working conditions
walks through Ms. Stevens’ classroom. Indeed, Ms. Stevens (Bettini et al., 2017), high stress (Singh & Billingsley,
always has a caring, calm demeanor in her interactions 1996), and high burnout (Nelson et al., 2001), which col-
with students, even when they present very challenging lectively contribute to high teacher attrition (Gilmour &
behavior. Ms. Stevens also praises students’ positive behav- Wehby, 2019). However, administrators are in a position to
iors often. Both teacher behaviors are noteworthy strengths address these challenges. Indeed, administrators are respon-
that are essential for student success. However, Ms. Stevens sible for creating conditions that facilitate teachers’ efforts
expresses deep concerns about the quality of her own read- to provide effective, research- or evidence-based reading
ing instruction. Ms. Stevens shares that her reading instruc- instruction (Billingsley et al., 2019).
tion is a “shizzle show . . . . I’m really struggling with [it].” To understand how administrators can fulfill that respon-
Indeed, observations verify that reading instruction in Ms. sibility, we draw on Bettini et al.’s (2016) conceptual frame-
Stevens’ class is unstructured, with no clear objective or work, which is based on a limited but growing research base
planned sequence of activities. Instruction proceeds at a that articulates how working conditions shape special edu-
slow pace, with limited opportunities for students to respond cators’ opportunities to learn and opportunities to enact
and little feedback tied to student responses. She often effective practices. Working conditions are the contexts of
spends significant instructional time organizing and famil- teachers’ work, including the demands placed on them and
iarizing herself with materials. Although there is a rein- the support they receive to meet those demands. Working
forcement system, reinforcement does not occur immediately conditions can be thought of as the manifestation of the
and is not tightly tied to students’ engagement in reading school’s organization in teachers’ daily work life. For exam-
instruction. Data are seldom collected and rarely used to ple, the master schedule shapes the adequacy of planning
inform instructional decisions. time, while the school’s social organization (e.g., into
Given the kind of instruction described above, it makes teams) determines who teachers interact with during their
sense that students are making insufficient academic prog- work day. Thus, working conditions are a product of choices
ress. However, as we discuss in the next section, given the school leaders make about how to structure and coordinate
limited support that Ms. Stevens has for reading instruction, the work of teachers.
it is perhaps also unsurprising that reading instruction does As shown in Table 1 (adapted from Billingsley et al.,
not reflect the high-quality practices described previously. 2019), when special educators’ working conditions do not
Ms. Stevens’ working conditions limit her capacity to plan provide them with opportunities to learn, they may not be
for and provide skilled instruction. able to maximize their resources to provide skilled reading
Bettini et al. 55
instruction. Even when teacher preparation programs pro- students who struggle, and behavior management skills
vide strong opportunities to learn effective practices, teach- (Brownell et al., 2012). Formal, ongoing PD is one of the
ers require continuing opportunities to develop instructional most common and effective methods that administrators
skills throughout their careers, such as through professional like Ms. Moretta can provide to ensure teachers have oppor-
development (PD) and through interactions with curricula tunities to learn (Kennedy, 2016). Extensive research on PD
and colleagues (Bettini et al., 2016). Conversely, when spe- indicates that it is more likely to promote changes in teach-
cial educators’ working conditions do not provide them ers’ instruction if it (a) is of appropriate duration for the
with opportunities to enact effective practices, they may not content, with more time dedicated to learning more com-
be able to deploy their knowledge to provide strong instruc- plex practices (Kennedy, 2016); (b) is content-focused, pro-
tion (Billingsley et al., 2019). Providing opportunities for viding teachers insights into how students learn in a
teachers to enact effective practices may seem, on the sur- particular content area; (c) involves collective participation
face, to be a simple matter of putting teachers in front of with colleagues (Desimone, 2009); and (d) includes follow-
students. However, many factors can shape teachers’ capac- up support, such as coaching (Brock & Carter, 2017) or per-
ity to enact effective practices during their time with stu- formance feedback (Fallon et al., 2015) to help teachers
dents, including the range of student needs in the group they integrate newly learned practices into their instruction.
are assigned to teach, the quality of their instructional
resources, and their opportunities to plan for instruction Challenges to providing effective PD to special educators serving
(Billingsley et al., 2019). students with EBD. Providing effective PD to special educa-
In the following sections, we describe how administra- tors serving students with EBD in dedicated settings poses
tors like Ms. Moretta can provide working conditions that several challenges. First, these teachers often teach multiple
support special educators’ opportunities to learn and enact subjects to students in multiple grades (Bettini et al., 2017).
effective reading instructional practices. Based on Bettini Moreover, as noted earlier, these students are likely to have
et al.’s (2016) conceptual framework, we focus on (a) PD, substantial skill gaps (Wanzek et al., 2014). As such, when
(b) collaboration and collegial interactions, (c) curricula PD is differentiated by grade level and content area, special
and material resources, (d) planning time, and (e) instruc- educators may have multiple sessions they need to attend.
tional grouping. A complete listing of the recommendations Second, some instructional practices for students with
is provided in Table 2. EBD are also recommended in general such as maximizing
instructional time, while others are specific to students
with behavior challenges, including building behavioral
PD
momentum (Landrum et al., 2003) and reinforcing student
Providing high-quality reading instruction requires sophis- engagement (McKenna & Bettini, 2018). Thus, the latter
ticated knowledge of reading, students’ learning needs, practices are unlikely to be taught in school-wide PD.
effective instructional practices for teaching reading to Similarly, explicit instruction is most effective for students
Table 2. Opportunities for Administrators to Support Special Educators’ Use of Effective Reading Instructional Practices.
Conditions Recommendations
PD •• Help special educators prioritize what PD options to attend;
•• Ensure follow-up coaching and/or performance feedback from someone with knowledge and skill in
special education instructional practices and in the PD content;
•• Design some PD opportunities specifically for special educators serving students with EBD.
Collaboration and •• Provide and protect time for collaboration;
Collegial Interactions •• Establish a culture of collective responsibility for all students, including students with EBD.
Curricular Resources •• Ensure access to both general education curricula and to intervention curricula, in every subject and
grade level for which a special educator is responsible, by:
 Considering special educators’ instructional needs when ordering curricula;
 Facilitating access to previously ordered materials;
 Provide a budget to support purchase of supplemental materials and student reinforcers.
Planning Time •• Ensure special educators have regularly scheduled planning time;
•• Protect regularly scheduled planning time by ensuring skilled student supervision during this time;
•• Reduce extra responsibilities.
Instructional Grouping •• To the extent possible, group students with shared instructional needs;
•• Help special educators problem solve how to address the diversity of student instructional needs in
their classes.
Note. PD = professional development; EBD = emotional and behavioral disorders.
56 Beyond Behavior 29(1)
who struggle in reading, whereas implicit methods are associated with substantial improvements in effectiveness
more effective for students with age- or developmentally- (Sun et al., 2017).
appropriate skills (Connor et al., 2004). All told, teachers
like Ms. Stevens may need additional PD, beyond that pro- Challenges to collaboration for special educators serving stu-
vided to other teachers. Exacerbating this issue, a special dents with EBD. Special educators in dedicated settings are
educator may be the only teacher in his or her school serv- often isolated from colleagues (O’Brien et al., 2019). In a
ing students with EBD due to the low proportion of stu- recent national survey, special educators reported having
dents identified with EBD (Bettini et al., 2017). For instructional interactions with general education colleagues,
example, Ms. Moretta’s whole district has only one ele- on average, only 1–3 times/month; with special education
mentary, one middle, and two high-school special educa- colleagues, 1–2 times/week; and with learning specialists
tors serving students with EBD in dedicated classes, (e.g., reading coaches) less than once/month. Paraprofes-
leaving Ms. Stevens without a natural cohort with whom to sionals were the only personnel with whom they reported
engage in collective PD. daily instructional interactions (O’Brien et al., 2019).
Although it is encouraging that special educators had some-
How can administrators support these special educators’ one with whom to talk about instruction, paraprofessionals
PD? We recommend that administrators take three steps to typically have limited training (Giangreco et al., 2010), and
increase the utility of PD for special educators serving stu- interactions with them may not confer the benefits of inter-
dents with EBD in dedicated settings. First, when multiple acting with skilled colleagues.
PD options are available, administrators can help special Few studies have examined why these special educators
educators identify the option most useful for them. For are isolated, but schedules may present barriers. While
example, if PD is provided to grade-level cohorts, Ms. other teachers often eat lunch together, special educators
Moretta could help Ms. Stevens determine which cohort to serving students with EBD often report eating with students
join, given her student needs and her own strengths and in order to ensure student safety and/or build relationships
weaknesses. (Bettini et al., 2019). Planning periods are another opportu-
Second, all teachers need follow-up support such as nity for collegial interactions, but these special educators
coaching (Brock & Carter, 2017) to help integrate PD con- also report having limited planning time (O’Brien et al.,
tent into their instruction. Follow-up support is likely to be 2019). Thus, teachers like Ms. Stevens often have limited
most helpful, however, if it is delivered by personnel with time to interact with colleagues.
strong knowledge of both PD content and the needs of stu-
dents with EBD, as both knowledge bases are necessary to How can administrators support special educators’ collabora-
help special educators understand how to enact PD content. tion and collegial interactions? First, administrators can
Thus, when identifying who will provide follow-up support remove barriers to collegial interactions by ensuring special
to Ms. Stevens, Ms. Moretta should seek out PD providers educators have scheduled time for collaboration with skilled
who have both knowledge bases. colleagues. For example, if general educators have weekly
Third, administrators might consider creating some collaborative planning periods, then Ms. Moretta can ensure
opportunities for special educators to participate in PD with special educators’ schedules release them to participate in
colleagues who also serve students with EBD in dedicated collaborative planning with highly skilled teachers who
settings. In schools with only one special educator in this teach a grade Ms. Stevens teaches. Similarly, in schools
role, as at Lincoln Elementary, this may require coordina- using multi-tiered systems of support, reading specialists
tion across the district. These opportunities can focus on typically meet with teams to discuss student data and help
instructional practices (e.g., building behavioral momen- teachers make data-informed instructional decisions (Fuchs
tum, reinforcing student engagement) that are unique to stu- et al., 2014). Administrators can ensure that special educa-
dents with EBD. tors serving students with EBD are included in specialists’
schedules. Because reading specialists typically have sub-
stantial pedagogical content knowledge, interacting with
Collaboration and Collegial Interactions
them may offer the benefits that come from interacting with
Formal and informal interactions with colleagues provide more effective colleagues.
opportunities to learn (Billingsley et al., 2019). Through Second, teachers interact more with colleagues when
interactions with colleagues, teachers gain access to col- their school has a culture of collective responsibility – that
leagues’ knowledge and resources, and these interactions is, when teachers share the belief that they all share respon-
predict improvements in their instruction (Ronfeldt et al., sibility for all students (Bettini et al., 2018). Special educa-
2015). Interactions with highly skilled colleagues may be tors tend to engage in more frequent collegial interactions
especially important, as they provide teachers with access focused on reading instruction in schools with a culture of
to more effective ways of instructing students and are shared responsibility for students with disabilities. Thus,
Bettini et al. 57
administrators such as Ms. Moretta can shape school cul- . . . a lot of Teacher Pay Teachers . . . Pinterest.” She further
ture by clearly communicating values and establishing shared, “that’s kind of why [reading instruction is] hodge
expectations for how teachers should act and interact podge right now.” Siuty et al.’s (2018) findings suggest this
(Billingsley et al., 2014). “hodge podge” is unlikely to resemble strong reading
instruction. Furthermore, because these teachers often teach
multiple grades, they likely require more curricular
Curricula and Other Material Resources
resources than other teachers—not less (Bettini et al., 2017).
Teachers use curricular resources to determine the scope
and sequence of instructional content, as well as their teach- How can administrators support these special educators’ cur-
ing and assessment methods (Siuty et al., 2018). As such, ricular resources? Students with EBD have a legal right to
curricular resources can provide teachers opportunities to access general education reading curricula (Every Student
learn about content, how students learn content, and effec- Succeeds Act, 2015). And, they are often far behind grade
tive instructional practices for teaching that content (Ball & level in reading, requiring interventions to address founda-
Cohen, 1996). For example, reviewing effective curricula tional skills (Wanzek et al., 2014). Thus, administrators can
can prepare teachers to understand and pre-correct common ensure special educators have high-quality curricular mate-
misconceptions about content. Similarly, well-designed rials that both (a) support students to learn general educa-
curricula can help teachers understand connections among tion content and (b) address foundational skill gaps, such as
units, thereby helping them create more coherent learning those in decoding and fluency. In addition, administrators
experiences for students (Davis & Krajcik, 2005). Curricular can provide assessment materials that help teachers identify
materials are also practical tools for instruction. Thus, reading skill strengths and deficits as well as monitor
teachers’ meaningful use of curricular materials can facili- instructional and/or intervention effectiveness.
tate teachers’ opportunities to enact effective practices, as First, administrators can proactively include special edu-
teachers often adopt practices embedded in curricular cators in all curricular orders for the school as a whole. For
resources (Grossman & Thompson, 2008). example, when ordering new curricula, Ms. Moretta can
A growing body of research indicates that teachers purchase for Ms. Stevens a teacher’s guide and student texts
become more effective at promoting strong student out- for each grade and content area that Ms. Stevens could be
comes when they have strong curricula, such as lesson assigned to teach. Because Ms. Stevens can be assigned stu-
plans and logistical supports for using them (Jackson & dents in all elementary grades, K-5, the order should include
Makarin, 2016). For example, Siuty et al. (2018) found that a teacher’s guide in every content area for all grades, K-5,
special educators without a reading intervention program as well as enough student materials for the maximum num-
tended to use an ad hoc array of materials, drawing on what ber of K-5 students who could be placed in her class. Ms.
was readily available and creating many materials them- Stevens should also be included in PD focused on using
selves while not systematically collecting data to inform new curricula.
instructional decision making. These teachers’ instruction Second, if curricular materials have already been
“lacked a clear scope, sequence, and purpose, and did not ordered, administrators can ensure that special educators
resemble targeted and intensive intervention” (Siuty et al., have access to these materials for all grades and subjects
2018, p. 11). In contrast, teachers with curricula had to take they teach. If they do not, administrators can help change
data, which helped them learn about students’ skills, and that. Because these special educators tend to have limited
they had guidance about how to individualize instruction planning time and be isolated in their schools (O’Brien
based on data. This led them to focus on the foundational et al., 2019), they may not have the time or social relation-
skills (e.g., phonics) that other teachers neglected. ships to negotiate access to resources without administra-
Curricular materials can meaningfully shape the instruc- tors’ involvement. For example, Ms. Moretta could assist
tion special educators enact. Ms. Stevens in procuring curricula from storage closets or
obtaining other teachers’ extra texts.
Challenges to providing curricular resources to special educators Third, effective reading instruction for students with
serving students with EBD. Special educators serving stu- EBD requires additional materials, beyond what other teach-
dents with EBD often report having limited curricula ers require. Specifically, incentive systems require teachers
(Albrecht et al., 2009). In a recent national survey, the to maintain a menu of reinforcers, which should be individu-
majority of special educators in these settings reported hav- alized based on students’ interests (Simonsen et al., 2015).
ing to find their own curricular resources (O’Brien et al., Reinforcers are a core component of effective instruction for
2019). At Lincoln Elementary, for example, Ms. Stevens students with EBD, yet they are not free to teachers.
reported having no reading curricula. She relied on, “What Administrators, then, can purchase them with school funds
is it, a Houghton Mifflin book?” that she “found . . . in the so that teachers do not have to use their own financial
. . . copy room . . . I do create a lot of my own [materials] resources. Furthermore, since students’ motivations change,
58 Beyond Behavior 29(1)
funds should be available throughout the year so that teach- Extra responsibilities may also limit planning time
ers can change reinforcers in response to student change. (Bettini et al., 2015). Special educators have extensive
paperwork and supervision responsibilities (Vannest &
Planning Time Hagan-Burke, 2010), which they report take time and atten-
tion away from planning instruction (DeMik, 2008). To
Planning time provides opportunities for teachers to exam-
complete these tasks, while also planning instruction across
ine goals, curricular materials, and student data, as they
multiple grades and content areas, special educators like
decide what and how to teach (Darling-Hammond et al.,
Ms. Stevens may require more planning time than other
2009). Thus, planning time may provide special educators
educators (Bettini et al., 2017).
opportunities to enact effective reading instruction (O’Brien
et al., 2019). For example, in one study, teachers’ ratings of
How can administrators support these special educators’ planning
the adequacy of planning time differentiated those who
time? First, administrators can create or modify master sched-
implemented recently learned research-based instructional
ules to ensure special educators have daily planning time—at
practices with fidelity from those who did not (Allinder,
least as much time as other educators in the school. Second, to
1996), indicating planning time may help special educators
protect this time, administrators must ensure students are
integrate newly learned practices into their instruction effec-
supervised by personnel with strong training in classroom and
tively. Consistent with this, special educators often report
behavior management, as well as specific training in students’
that having time to carefully plan contributes substantially to
behavior plans. For example, Ms. Moretta could construct
the quality of their instruction (Bettini et al., 2019). In con-
Lincoln’s master schedule such that another highly skilled
trast, special educators without adequate planning time
special educator provides instruction one period per day, free-
sometimes report using instructional time for planning and
ing Ms. Stevens to spend this time planning. Third, adminis-
paperwork, suggesting that providing more planning time
trators should consider reducing extra responsibilities (e.g.,
could translate into more time for instruction (Bettini et al.,
scheduling individualized education program meetings; bus
2015). In addition, researchers have consistently found that
duty) so that special educators can use planning time to plan
special educators’ ratings of planning time are associated
for instruction (Bettini et al., 2019). For example, Ms. Moretta
with their emotional exhaustion (a component of burnout
could reassign responsibilities that do not require specialized
that is related to instructional quality) and intent to continue
expertise to classified staff.
teaching (Bettini et al., 2020). Thus, providing and protect-
ing planning time for special educators may support effec-
tive reading instruction as well as have collateral benefits Assigned Instructional Groups
through prevention of teacher burnout and attrition.
Assigned instructional groups shape special educators’
opportunities to enact effective instructional practices
Challenges to planning time for special educators serving stu-
(Billingsley et al., 2019). In particular, special educators
dents with EBD. Special educators consistently report hav-
can provide more effective intensive instruction when they
ing insufficient time for planning (Albrecht et al., 2009).
teach small groups of students with shared instructional
For example, in a recent national survey, special educators
needs (Russ et al., 2001). For example, reading interven-
in dedicated settings for students with EBD reported sel-
tions in Grades K-3 are consistently more effective with
dom having adequate time for planning and spending almost
smaller groups (Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007). Smaller, more
10 hr per week planning outside school hours (O’Brien
homogeneous groups help special educators provide stu-
et al., 2019).
dents with practice opportunities that are tightly aligned
One challenge may be that special educators serving stu-
with their learning needs and more frequent feedback on
dents with EBD in dedicated settings are often needed to
their learning (Vaughn et al., 2012). Thus, researchers rec-
ensure student safety during their planning time. For exam-
ommend structuring reading instruction so that students
ple, at Lincoln Elementary, Ms. Stevens shared,
with the most significant reading difficulties receive read-
ing instruction in small groups of two to four students
I just don’t know . . . how it would be possible [for me to take
(Vaughn et al., 2012).
planning time] without coming back to more fires . . . I wouldn’t
be able to focus . . . It’s just getting some time where . . . I feel
. . . the kids are safe . . . I obviously want a break during the day Challenges to appropriate instructional grouping for special edu-
but it’s more stressful . . . cators serving students with EBD. Special educators serving
students with EBD in dedicated classes teach an average of
Other special educators have echoed Ms. Stevens’s concern 9–10 students (O’Brien et al., 2019). These special educa-
that they cannot take planning time and ensure student tors report that their students do not have similar instruc-
safety unless there is strong supervision in place during tional needs and that they teach students from multiple
their absence (Bettini et al., 2019). grades (three, on average). As such, they report that it is not
Bettini et al. 59
manageable to deliver instruction that meets all students’ She can specifically ensure Ms. Jones has (a) consistent time
needs in one lesson (O’Brien et al., 2019). One challenge to to plan, while students are supervised by someone with
more appropriate instructional groups may be the small strong relevant skills; (b) dedicated time allocated for col-
number of students with EBD who require dedicated pro- laboration and collegial interactions, especially with skilled
gramming. For example, Lincoln Elementary’s district has colleagues, focused on reading instruction; and (c) the per-
only six elementary students who require this level of ser- sonnel resources necessary to divide her students up for read-
vice. The district does not have the critical mass to warrant ing instruction, so that she can provide targeted, intensive
creating multiple classes and separating students by grade. instruction. She can also begin gathering curricular resources,
ensuring Ms. Jones walks into a classroom that is well-
How can administrators support these special educators’ stocked with all of the curricula necessary for providing high-
instructional groups? Some districts may have enough stu- quality and targeted reading instruction across grade levels,
dents to justify multiple dedicated classes for students so that Ms. Jones does not have to rely on the “hodge podge”
with EBD. In these cases, administrators might consider of materials that Ms. Stevens relied on. Ms. Moretta can also
collaborating with special educators to develop schedules carefully plan for Ms. Jones’s PD, identifying PD opportuni-
that are informed by students’ reading data, so that special ties focused on strong reading instruction, and PD providers
educators have opportunities to provide reading instruction with relevant expertise in both reading instruction and sup-
to small groups of students with shared reading needs, as porting students with EBD. Finally, when reflecting on her
recommended (Vaughn et al., 2012). supports for Ms. Stevens, Ms. Moretta shared that she
In districts without enough students to justify multiple planned, in future, to “meet with the teacher . . . weekly” so
classes, administrators can actively problem solve, in collabo- that she would have a better sense of “what was actually
ration with teachers, to determine how to support small group going on . . .” in the classroom. She shared that a meeting
reading instruction for students with EBD. Administrators would provide an opportunity for the teacher to raise “con-
may be able to use other resources to support small homoge- cerns and needs.” By meeting weekly, Ms. Moretta would
neous groups. For example, at Lincoln Elementary, Ms. have an opportunity to evaluate to what extent Ms. Jones had
Moretta was exploring the possibility of having another spe- adequate opportunities to learn and enact effective reading
cial educator teach some reading instruction in Ms. Stevens’s instructional practices for her students with EBD.
class, which would allow Ms. Stevens and the other teacher to
divide up students for targeted reading instruction. Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conclusion
Reading proficiency is crucial to success for students with Funding
EBD (Ciullo et al., 2016). School personnel have a legal The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
obligation to provide “more than de minimis” benefit to stu- for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
dents to ensure that students actually make progress given research was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences,
their educational needs (Yell & Bateman, 2017). Special U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R324B170017 to
educators are responsible for providing high-quality, inten- Boston University (PI: Elizabeth Bettini). The opinions expressed
are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute
sive reading instruction to students with EBD in dedicated
or the U.S. Department of Education.
settings (IDEIA, 2004), and administrators are responsible
for ensuring special educators have opportunities to learn
Note
and enact effective reading practices (Billingsley et al.,
2014). Administrators can fulfill this responsibility by 1. This vignette represents real experiences of participants in
an ongoing research study, which was approved by Boston
leveraging special educators’ working conditions as a
University’s IRB office. All examples and quotes from
means to support them in their work.
Lincoln Elementary are real, but proper nouns (e.g., school
After learning about the importance of working condi-
name, principal and teacher name) have been replaced by
tions in supporting special educators in their work with stu-
pseudonyms. This research was supported by the Institute of
dents with EBD in dedicated settings, Ms. Moretta gained a
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through
better understanding of why her students might be struggling Grant R324B170017 to Boston University (PI: Elizabeth
in reading and why Ms. Stevens decided to quit teaching. Ms. Bettini). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and
Moretta is determined to better support Ms. Stevens’s replace- do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department
ment, Ms. Jones, the following year, by thoughtfully provid- of Education.
ing conditions that support Ms. Jones’s instruction.
As she plans for next year, Ms. Moretta should consider References
designing the master schedule to proactively address the
Albrecht, S. F., Johns, B. H., Mounstevens, J., & Olorunda, O.
needs of the students and teacher in the dedicated classroom. (2009). Working conditions as risk or resiliency factors for
60 Beyond Behavior 29(1)
teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disabili- tion cases using Direct Behavior Ratings Single-Item Scales
ties. Psychology in the Schools, 10, 1006–1022. https://doi. (DBR-SIS). Exceptional Children, 78, 491–505. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pits.20440 org/10.1177/001440291207800406
Allinder, R. M. (1996). When some is not better than none: Ciullo, S., Ortiz, M., Al Otaiba, S., & Lane, K. (2016). Advanced
Effects of differential implementation of curriculum-based reading comprehension expectations in secondary school:
measurement. Exceptional Children, 62, 525–535. https://doi. Considerations for students with emotional or behavioral
org/10.1177/001440299606200604 disorders. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 27, 54–64.
Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207315604365
might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the
and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25, 6–14. reading wars: Exploring the effect of child-instruction interac-
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025009006 tions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading,
Bettini, E., Crockett, J., Brownell, M. T., & Merrill, K. (2016). 8, 305–336. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0804_1
Relationships between working conditions and special educa- Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N.,
tors’ instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 50, 178– & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learn-
190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466916644425 ing profession: A status report on teacher development in
Bettini, E., Cumming, M., Merrill, K., Brunsting, N., & Liaupsin, C. the United States and abroad. National Staff Development
J. (2017). Working conditions in self-contained settings for stu- Council and the School Redesign Network. http://learningfor-
dents with emotional disorders. The Journal of Special Education, ward.org/
51, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466916674195 Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum
Bettini, E., Cumming, M., O’Brien, K. M., Brunsting, N., materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher,
Ragunanthan, M., Sutton, R., & Chopra, A. (2020). Working 34, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003
conditions and special educators’ intent to continue teaching DeMik, S. A. (2008). Experiencing attrition of special education
students with emotional/behavioral disorders in self-con- teachers through narrative inquiry. The High School Journal,
tained classes. Exceptional Children, 86, 209–228. 92, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.0.0009
Bettini, E., Jones, N. D., Brownell, M. T., Conroy, M., & Leite, W. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’
(2018). Relationships between novices’ social resources and professional development: Toward better conceptualizations
workload manageability. The Journal of Special Education, and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199. https://
52, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918775432 doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140
Bettini, E., Kimerling, J., Park, Y., & Murphy, K. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114
Responsibilities and instructional time: Relationships identified Stat. 1177.
by special educators in self-contained classes for students with Fallon, L. M., Collier-Meek, M. A., Maggin, D. M., Sanetti, L. M.,
emotional and behavioral disabilities. Preventing School Failure, & Johnson, A. H. (2015). Is performance feedback for educa-
59, 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2013.859561 tors an evidence-based practice? A systematic review and eval-
Bettini, E., Wang, J., Cumming, M., Kimerling, J., & Schutz, S. uation based on single case research. Exceptional Children,
(2019). Special educators’ experiences of roles and responsi- 81, 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551738
bilities in self-contained classes for students with emotional/ Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2014). What is intensive instruc-
behavioral disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 31, tion and why is it important? Teaching Exceptional Children,
126–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518762470 46, 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914522966
Billingsley, B., Bettini, E., & Jones, N. D. (2019). Supporting spe- Garwood, J., Ciullo, S., & Brunsting, N. (2017). Supporting stu-
cial education teacher induction through high-leverage prac- dents with emotional and behavioral disorders’ comprehen-
tices. Remedial and Special Education, 40, 365–379. https:// sion and reading fluency. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49,
doi.org/10.1177/0741932518816826 391–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917707434
Billingsley, B. S., McLeskey, J., & Crockett, J. B. (2014). Principal Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., & Doyle, M. B. (2010).
leadership: Moving towards inclusive and high-achieving Paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: A review of recent
schools for students with disabilities. http://ceedar.education. research. Journal of Educational Psychological Consultation,
ufl.edu/ 20, 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410903535356
Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2017). A meta-analysis of educator Gilmour, A., & Wehby, J. (2019). The association between teach-
training to improve implementation of interventions for stu- ing students with disabilities and teacher turnover. Journal of
dents with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38, Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. https://
131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516653477 doi.org/10.1037/edu0000394
Brownell, M. T., Lauterbach, A., Benedict, A., Kimerling, J., Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curricu-
Bettini, E., & Murphy, K. (2012). Preparing teachers to lum materials: Scaffolds for new teachers? Teaching and
effectively deliver reading instruction and behavioral sup- Teacher Education, 24, 2014–2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ports in response to intervention frameworks. In B. G. Cook, tate.2008.05.002
M. Tankersley, & T. J. Landrum (Eds.), Advances in learn- Hott, B., Jones, B., Rodriguez, J., Brigham, F., Martin, A., &
ing and behavior disorders (pp. 247–278). Emerald Group. Mirafuentes, M. (2019). Are rural students receiving FAPE? A
https://doi.org/10.1108/S0735-004X(2012)0000025013 descriptive review of IEPs for students with social, emotional,
Chafouleas, S., Sanetti, L., Kilgus, S., & Maggin, D. (2012). or behavioral needs. Behavior Modification. Advance online
Evaluating sensitivity to behavioral change across consulta- publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445518825107
Bettini et al. 61
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 123–130. https://doi.
20 U.S.C. § 1400. org/10.1177/106342660100900207
Jackson, K., & Makarin, A. (2016). Can online off-the-shelf O’Brien, K. M., Brunsting, N. C., Bettini, E., Cumming, M. M.,
lessons improve student outcomes?: Evidence from a field Ragunathan, M., & Sutton, R. (2019). Special educators’
experiment. National Bureau of Economic Research. www working conditions in self-contained settings for students
.nber.org/papers/w22398 with emotional or behavioral disorders: A descriptive analy-
Kalberg, J. R., Lane, K. L., & Menzies, H. M. (2010). Using sys- sis. Exceptional Children, 86, 40–57.
tematic screening procedures to identify students who are Office of Special Education Programs. (2017). 39th annual report
nonresponsive to primary prevention efforts: Integrating aca- to congress on the implementation of IDEA. https://www2.
demic and behavioral measures. Education and Treatment of ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/index.html
Children, 33, 561–584. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2010.0007 Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A.
Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2018). Characteristics of emo- (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and stu-
tional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (11th ed.). dent achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
Pearson. 52, 475–514. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215585562
Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development
Rozalski, M., Stewart, A., & Miller, J. (2010). How to determine
improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86, 945–
the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities.
980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
Exceptionality, 18, 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/093628
Kostewicz, D., & Kubina, R. (2008). The national reading panel
35.2010.491991
guidepost: A review of reading outcome measures for students
Russ, S., Chiang, B., Rylance, B. J., & Bongers, J. (2001).
with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders,
Caseload in special education: An integration of research
33, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290803300201
findings. Exceptional Children, 67, 161–172. https://doi.org/
Landrum, T., Tankersley, M., & Kauffman, J. (2003). What is spe-
10.1177/001440290106700202
cial about special education for students with emotional or
Ryan, J., Pierce, C., & Mooney, P. (2008). Evidence-based teach-
behavioral disorders? The Journal of Special Education, 37,
ing strategies for students with EBD. Beyond Behavior, 17,
148–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669030370030401
22–29.
Levy, S., & Vaughn, S. (2002). An observational study of teach-
Simonsen, B., Freeman, J., Goodman, S., Mitchell, B., Swain-
ers’ reading instruction of students with emotional or behav-
Bradway, J., Flannery, B., & Putnam, B. (2015). Supporting
ioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 215–235. https://
and responding to behavior: Evidence based classroom strat-
doi.org/10.1177/019874290202700303
Maggin, D. M., Wehby, J. H., Moore Partin, T. C., Robertson, R., & egies for teachers. U.S. Office of Special Education Programs.
Oliver, R. M. (2011). A comparison of the instructional context Singh, K., & Billingsley, B. S. (1996). Intent to stay in teaching:
for students with behavioral issues enrolled in self-contained Teachers of students with emotional disorders versus other
and general education classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 36, special educators. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 37–
84–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291103600201 47. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259601700105
McKenna, J. W., Adamson, R., & Solis, M. (2019). Reading instruc- Siuty, M. B., Leko, M. M., & Knackstedt, K. M. (2018).
tion for students with emotional disturbance: A mixed meth- Unraveling the role of curriculum in teacher decision making.
ods investigation. Behavior Modification. Advance online Teacher Education and Special Education, 41, 39–57. https://
publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519868804 doi.org/10.1177/0888406416683230
McKenna, J. W., & Bettini, E. (2018). Improving reading flu- Sun, M., Loeb, S., & Grissom, J. (2017). Building teacher teams:
ency skills for secondary students with emotional and behav- Evidence of positive spillovers from more effective col-
ioral disorders. Beyond Behavior, 27, 74–81. https://doi. leagues. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39,
org/10.1177/1074295618779374 104–125. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716665698
McKenna, J. W., & Ciullo, S. (2016). Typical reading instruc- Vannest, K. J., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2010). Teacher time use in
tional practices provided to students with emotional and special education. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 126–
behavioral disorders in a residential and day treatment set- 142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508327459
ting: A mixed methods study. Residential Treatment for Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Murray, C. S., & Roberts, G. (2012).
Children and Youth, 33, 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/08 Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and
86571X.2016.1207217 mathematics: A practice guide. RMC Research Corporation,
McKenna, J. W., & Flower, A. (2014). Get them back on Center on Instruction.
track: Use of the Good Behavior Game to improve stu- Wanzek, J., Al Otaiba, S., & Petscher, Y. (2014). Oral r eading
dent behavior. Beyond Behavior, 23, 20–26. https://doi. fluency development for children with emo tional disturbance
org/10.1177/107429561402300204 or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 80, 187–204.
McKenna, J. W., Shin, M., Solis, M., Mize, M., & Pfannenstiel, https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291408000204
K. (2019). Effects of single-case reading interventions for Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications
students with and at-risk of emotional and behavioral disor- from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology
ders in grades K-12: A quantitative synthesis. Psychology in Review, 36, 541–561.
the Schools, 56, 608–629. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22242 Yell, M., & Bateman, D. (2017). Endrew F. v Douglas County
Nelson, J. R., Maculan, A., Roberts, M. L., & Ohlund, B. J. School District (2017): FAPE and the U.S. Supreme Court.
(2001). Sources of occupation stress for teachers of s tudents Teaching Exceptional Children, 50, 7–15. https://doi.
with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of org/10.1177/0040059917721116